Caxton Ltd. and Others v Reeva Forman (Pty) Ltd. and Another (393/88) [1990] ZASCA 47; 1990 (3) SA 547 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 300 (A) (17 May 1990)

Caxton Ltd. and Others v Reeva Forman (Pty) Ltd. and Another (393/88) [1990] ZASCA 47; 1990 (3) SA 547 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 300 (A) (17 May 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the article published by the appellants was highly defamatory and calculated to injure the business reputation and goodwill of the respondents, causing actual patrimonial loss. The trial court erred in failing to account for the impact of the economic recession on the respondents' business when quantifying special damages. The quantum of general damages awarded was excessive given the overlap with special damages for loss of profits. The respondents failed to prove that their business was unaffected by the recession, and the court recalculated special damages accordingly. The exclusion of evidence at trial did not prejudice the appellants, as the...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 47
Parties
Appellant: Caxton Limited; Appellant: Marilyn Louise Hattingh; Appellant: Lin Sampson; Appellant: C T P Web Printers (Proprietary) Limited; Appellant: National News Distributors; Appellant: Central News Agency Limited; Respondent: Reeva Forman (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Reeva Success Dynamics (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 1990
Case Number
393/88
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages to first respondent reduced. Appeal dismissed as against second respondent. Costs awarded as specified.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, E M Grosskopf, Friedman, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Defamation, Quantification of Damages, Business Reputation, Special and General Damages, Trade Practices Act, Pyramid Selling
Delict Commercial and Corporate Defamation Quantification of Damages Business Reputation Special and General Damages Trade Practices Act Pyramid Selling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caxton Limited

Appellant

Marilyn Louise Hattingh

Appellant

Lin Sampson

Appellant

C T P Web Printers (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

National News Distributors

Appellant

Central News Agency Limited

Appellant

Reeva Forman (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Reeva Success Dynamics (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defamatory article published by the appellants caused injury to the business reputation and patrimonial loss to the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' business constituted a pyramid selling scheme in contravention of the Trade Practices Act regulations.
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court was excessive or justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the article published by the appellants was highly defamatory and calculated to injure the business reputation and goodwill of the respondents, causing actual patrimonial loss. The trial court erred in failing to account for the impact of the economic recession on the respondents' business when quantifying special damages. The quantum of general damages awarded was excessive given the overlap with special damages for loss of profits. The respondents failed to prove that their business was unaffected by the recession, and the court recalculated special damages accordingly. The exclusion of evidence at trial did not prejudice the appellants, as the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages to first respondent reduced. Appeal dismissed as against second respondent. Costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • Payment to the second plaintiff (first respondent) of R150,000 general damages and R1,200,000 special damages, together with interest from date of judgment at 12% per annum.
  • Appellants to pay the costs of appeal, except those occasioned by the second day of the hearing before the court, which are to be borne by appellants.